/** AllBinary Open License Version 1* Copyright (c) 2011 AllBinary* * By agreeing to this license you and any business entity you represent are* legally bound to the AllBinary Open License Version 1 legal agreement.* * You may obtain the AllBinary Open License Version 1 legal agreement from* AllBinary or the root directory of AllBinary's AllBinary Platform repository.* * Created By: Travis Berthelot* */

God forbid someone shall steal 4 lines of code. Which is actually just 1 line with breaks.

Well at least it made me go look at the actual license. After a quick perusal I know I won't be using it anytime soon. It includes gems like this:

Quote

3. You must submit all of your published products using AllBinary Platform source code to one of two AllBinary Online Application Sites. Each product submission will cost 1 dollar USD and may be paid via Paypal to: travisberthelot@hotmail.com. (Until 2013 you will submit them via email to travisberthelot@hotmail.com including the binarys, screenshots, name, and description.)

4. You will fulfill one of the 2 requirements below:

You must obtain one or more advert provider identifiers with instructions from AllBinary. You must allow adverts to be displayed in your published product using this license. If the product does not have a customer facing visual then you must use the next requirement.

"Or"

You must pay or earn a yearly subscription as determined by AllBinary. (This fee is waved for 2011 and will be 2 dollars USD for the first half of 2012)

Well at least it made me go look at the actual license. After a quick perusal I know I won't be using it anytime soon.

Well, I was initially going to respond that this must be breaking the T&Cs of GitHub, but actually it doesn't seem to be - it would of almost any other free, open-source hosting service. As an example of a license to discourage as much use as possible, it's brilliant!

Well at least it made me go look at the actual license. After a quick perusal I know I won't be using it anytime soon.

Well, I was initially going to respond that this must be breaking the T&Cs of GitHub, but actually it doesn't seem to be - it would of almost any other free, open-source hosting service. As an example of a license to discourage as much use as possible, it's brilliant!

Yes I know 1$ dollar is so expensive. How dare I want to make a dollar.

If people can't pay a dollar then I would probably be willing to negotiate something else.

It's not that people can't pay you a dollar, it's that they don't want to. If the purpose of making developers pay is merely to keep track of who is using it, I don't see why you'd force adverts in their product OR make them pay, it makes no sense whatsoever. I'd argue that you'd find out anyway who is using your platform if you setup a forum to allow your users to provide feedback and bug reports.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings!

It's not that people can't pay you a dollar, it's that they don't want to. If the purpose of making developers pay is merely to keep track of who is using it, I don't see why you'd force adverts in their product OR make them pay, it makes no sense whatsoever. I'd argue that you'd find out anyway who is using your platform if you setup a forum to allow your users to provide feedback and bug reports.

Well the subscription is still zero as such you don't need adverts yet. Registration can be spoofed and anonymous. Plus I don't want spam apps when my apps site is ready.

Well at least it made me go look at the actual license. After a quick perusal I know I won't be using it anytime soon.

Well, I was initially going to respond that this must be breaking the T&Cs of GitHub, but actually it doesn't seem to be - it would of almost any other free, open-source hosting service. As an example of a license to discourage as much use as possible, it's brilliant!

Yes I know 1$ dollar is so expensive. How dare I want to make a dollar.

If people can't pay a dollar then I would probably be willing to negotiate something else.

As Riven said, it's got nothing to do with the price you've set. My comment was aimed more at your licensing model. All open-source or full out commercial would be fine. However, it sounds more like you're trying to build a Walled Garden. Why should any developer put time and effort into learning an API that's controlled at your whim, no matter how trustworthy you may be (and looking at that website, my reaction is NOT!). You might just about get developers interested in your walled garden if you're a huge company with millions of eagerly waiting muppets desperate to get their grubby hands on your latest little money earner (or, the Apple way ) Methinks you're not there yet!

Well at least it made me go look at the actual license. After a quick perusal I know I won't be using it anytime soon.

Well, I was initially going to respond that this must be breaking the T&Cs of GitHub, but actually it doesn't seem to be - it would of almost any other free, open-source hosting service. As an example of a license to discourage as much use as possible, it's brilliant!

Yes I know 1$ dollar is so expensive. How dare I want to make a dollar.

If people can't pay a dollar then I would probably be willing to negotiate something else.

As Riven said, it's got nothing to do with the price you've set. My comment was aimed more at your licensing model. All open-source or full out commercial would be fine. However, it sounds more like you're trying to build a Walled Garden. Why should any developer put time and effort into learning an API that's controlled at your whim, no matter how trustworthy you may be (and looking at that website, my reaction is NOT!). You might just about get developers interested in your walled garden if you're a huge company with millions of eagerly waiting muppets desperate to get their grubby hands on your latest little money earner (or, the Apple way ) Methinks you're not there yet!

If I had the government money that Apple received for R & D on the Next system then I too could charge 100$ just have people join, and your right I don't have the same marketing money to drive a Walled Garden.

Open Source commercial projects do exist and mine is one of them. You don't need to trust me since you can download the source unlike Apple.

My threshold is like thirty dollars which is why my games are in all the major stores that didn't charge me more than that. So, I am fine with people that have the threshold at 0$ dollars and just like I did they can create their own platform to stay away from something that seems to walled off to them.

I understand, but I am taking a stand on my 1$ requirement per app to stop spam apps. I may go to 10 cents or something when NFC takes off and drives micro transaction cost down.

I personally think that most developers are willing to pay a dollar to add apps if they believe in their application.

I personally think that most developers are willing to pay a dollar to add apps if they believe in their application.

and the platform, and some sense of financial security, meaning that the license explicitly says it won't be more expensive than $...

Further, a 'yearly subscription' with '$2 for the first half of 2012' is rather odd. So you make a commitment for a year, of which you don't know what it will cost you the second half. It would scare me off, regardless the features of the product.

Hi, appreciate more people! Σ ♥ = ¾Learn how to award medals... and work your way up the social rankings!

I personally think that most developers are willing to pay a dollar to add apps if they believe in their application.

and the platform, and some sense of financial security, meaning that the license explicitly says it won't be more expensive than $...

Further, a 'yearly subscription' with '$2 for the first half of 2012' is rather odd. So you make a commitment for a year, of which you don't know what it will cost you the second half. It would scare me off, regardless the features of the product.

If I had the government money that Apple received for R & D on the Next system then I too could charge 100$ just have people join, and your right I don't have the same marketing money to drive a Walled Garden.

Open Source commercial projects do exist and mine is one of them. You don't need to trust me since you can download the source unlike Apple.

Yours is not an open-source project, so please refrain from claiming it is. Just publishing the source does not make it open source! Maybe try looking here http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical and picking one, or at least understanding the concept.

Or not ... I can't be arsed with this thread any further. I don't think I've met anyone with such a breathtaking inability to take constructive criticism.

I disagree. The source is visible; therefore, it is open. This is an argument over semantics and if you don't agree on the meanings you're basically arguing that oranges are apples and not going to get anywhere.

I disagree. The source is visible; therefore, it is open. This is an argument over semantics and if you don't agree on the meanings you're basically arguing that oranges are apples and not going to get anywhere.

Aaarrghhh! The pedants are revolting!

While in some ways it's a fair point, to rephrase - this is not "open-source" by the most commonly understood definition of the term, and wouldn't be legally if OSI had managed to trademark the term (the irony inherent in that step not withstanding )

I disagree. The source is visible; therefore, it is open. This is an argument over semantics and if you don't agree on the meanings you're basically arguing that oranges are apples and not going to get anywhere.

Aaarrghhh! The pedants are revolting!

While in some ways it's a fair point, to rephrase - this is not "open-source" by the most commonly understood definition of the term, and wouldn't be legally if OSI had managed to trademark the term (the irony inherent in that step not withstanding )

Indeed but who's to say what's "the most commonly understood definition"?

I disagree. The source is visible; therefore, it is open. This is an argument over semantics and if you don't agree on the meanings you're basically arguing that oranges are apples and not going to get anywhere.

Aaarrghhh! The pedants are revolting!

While in some ways it's a fair point, to rephrase - this is not "open-source" by the most commonly understood definition of the term, and wouldn't be legally if OSI had managed to trademark the term (the irony inherent in that step not withstanding )

I never claimed to meet the definition used by OSI. OSI Open Source is not the only definition for open source.

I am sorry if you felt that I had tried to claim it as such. Saying Open Source without any association with OSI does not make it OSI Open Source.

Nor did I claim it as such.

If I say: I like an Apple because they taste good. Does not mean I am talking about Apple the business. Sure using lower case would probably clear it up for some people, but using caps does not change that it was in a different context.

Indeed but who's to say what's "the most commonly understood definition"?

Cas

Aah, arguing semantics makes me gay, by which I of course mean happy! Language depends on commonly understood definitions, and those are constantly changing and evolving, depending on what most people understand at a given point in time. If only there was a way to measure that, like Google, a dictionary, or Wikipedia, etc. In fact, at least two of those are better at defining "commonly understood" than "the truth".

btw - what we're talking about here is more commonly known as shared-source.

Indeed but who's to say what's "the most commonly understood definition"?

Cas

Aah, arguing semantics makes me gay, by which I of course mean happy! Language depends on commonly understood definitions, and those are constantly changing and evolving, depending on what most people understand at a given point in time. If only there was a way to measure that, like Google, a dictionary, or Wikipedia, etc. In fact, at least two of those are better at defining "commonly understood" than "the truth".

btw - what we're talking about here is more commonly known as shared-source.

That is used by MS$. I am not MS$.

Instead of using the term open source I will probably just say, the source is available at GitHub instead. So I will try hard not to use the term "Open Source" even though it is open source just to stop any confusion. I won't use shared-source as that is MS terminology.

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org